U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice or permission

[spanone]

are we imperialists yet?

~snip~

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197/print/1/displaymode/1098/

[bdamomma]

1. it just never stops.

we will pay big time, oh wait a minute we are paying big time.

[spanone]

2. our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the crimes of bu$hco

guess that iraq war resolution allowed him to commit war crimes anywhere in the world

all bu$h* needs to say is 'al qaeda' and all is right

[Ganja Ninja]

3. I'm against the war in Iraq not the war on al Qaeda.

I don't care where they have to go to get them either. As long as it's al Oaeda and not just some scam to steal a country's oil I have no problem with it.

[spanone]

4. i have a big problem with it.

i don't like to think any nation can fly drones into another nation and blow up a suspected villian....if we can do it to pakistan, then someone can justify doing it to us.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. If the Pakistanis know they're there and won't or ...

can't do anything about it what are we suppose to do? If they don't have complete sovereignty over the whole of their country that's their problem. They need to get things under control and if they can't then they have nothing to complain about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. So when they justifiably so, under international law, declare war on the US

are you willing to suit up?

This is the problem. UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FLYING THOSE DRONES IN OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS IS AN ACT OF WAR. Is this clear enough for you now?

[Ganja Ninja]

25. The people we attacked with that drone have already ...

attacked us and will again at some point. That was an act of war. The local populace is giving them sanctuary so they can plan and train for more attacks. This is exactly what al Qaeda would like you to believe. That they can sit there inside their sanctuary, attack us again and again and we have no right to retaliate or take action of any kind. Well tough luck for them. We do have that right. As far as I'm concerned this is where we should have been all along. Is that clear enough for you now or do I have to resort to the caps lock?

[Selatius]

52. The law says that non-state actors can't commit acts of war. They can only commit murder.

Knocking down two office towers and cratering the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania are devastating, to be sure, but it's not an act of war simply because Al Qaeda isn't a government entity. To commit an act of war, such as blowing up things inside Pakistan at the hands of government actors like the CIA, without Pakistan's permission, sets a negative precedent in the future.

For instance, the US has been harboring Luis Possada Carriles who is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba for blowing up Cubana flight 455. 73 people died. Since the US has refused to cooperate with both governments in seeing that the man is tried in court for the crime, does that give those two countries the right to blow up a building or several on American soil with their warplanes because they suspect that Carriles is holed up in those buildings?

[LynnTheDem]

29. And you also have no problem if Canada were to strike the US

and kill your family.

As long as they were going after "al Qaeda", of course.

Right?

[Ganja Ninja]

49. If my family were helping al Qaeda and there was no other way

to get them then yes.

I realize people don't like it when their families are killed. People here didn't like it when their families were killed on 9/11. But if you welcome al Qaeda in to your house or neighborhood or town then who's fault is it that you've become a target?

[LynnTheDem]

51. I'm very sorry for you. nt

[gilpo]

5. This could be a sign that the * misadministration is getting the message that Pakistan is not on...

our side. They knew Mushariff's gov't was going to lose big time in Feb, so they took it upon themselves to do this. Personally, I don't have a problem with killing a senior AQ leader. If we hadn't been so damn distracted in Iraq, we might have been able to do so real good in the Afgan/pakistan part of the world.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. That'll make Obama happy. He called for attacks on Pakistan.

[Raskolnik]

10. Now that's just a ridiculous thing to say.

I believe you're referring to his August 2007 speech, in which Obama said:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

Two questions for you:

(1) Could you point out what part of that statement "calls for attacks on Pakistan?"
(2) Could you explain your disagreement (if any) with that statement?

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Thanks for providing proof Obama called for attacks on Pakistan.

[Raskolnik]

14. You know just repeating something doesn't make it true, right?

Obama (correctly, in my opinion) stated that if we knew of Al Queda camps in the semi-autonomous region between Pakistan & Afghanistan, and Pakistan could/would not take action, we should.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between that position and "calling for attacks?"

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Like "Hope!" and "Change!"? yeah, I know.

[Raskolnik]

16. You know non-sequitors don't actually advance your argument, right?

You stated Obama "called for attacks on Pakistan." Have the intellectual honesty to either support that statement or retract it.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. You think we're arguing?

I made a statement. Your yelps of 'no fair!' don't constitute an argument.

[Raskolnik]

19. I think you made a misrepresentation that you don't have the intellectual honesty to retract.

I posted the actual words of the speech and asked you to support your statement.

You failed to do so, acting too clever by half in the process.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jillan]

31. I was just thinking that.

[Raskolnik]

43. Then you were just as mistaken.

[blm]

34. It will make Bill Clinton happy - he's the one who deep-sixed BCCI matters that are the CAUSE of

almost ALL this shit going on.

And some of you want to REWARD him for protecting the Bushes and the BCCI criminals.

[Romulox]

8. I don't see the problem. Harboring Bin Laden et al. is itself an act of war. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. How do you fight a TACTIC?

And don't hide behind plattitudes, this is a serious question.

And why the War on Terror is a sham.

We should fight Al Qaeda, but using military force and against the wishes of a sovereign nation (an act of war under International Law) is a problem.

Western European nations have quite a bit more of experience against terrorists... some nations close to fifty years. Tell me why they don't involve their armed forces?

Oh and tell me why OBL was let go at Tora Bora?

[Romulox]

17. I don't have any answers to your questions; I merely approve of efforts to capture or kill OBL.

"We should fight Al Qaeda, but using military force and against the wishes of a sovereign nation (an act of war under International Law) is a problem."

And harboring a person or group that carried out an act of war against the US is also an act of war under International Law.

So Pakistan can't hide behind "sovereignty" in order to harbor or protect Bin Laden.

[spanone]

24. i will not support a regime that believes it can attack anyone in any nation any time.

[IronLionZion]

23. I'm a big supporter of the war against Al Qaeda

those bastards are our enemy.

The "war on terror" is propaganda but the war against Al Qaeda is very real. Somehow, I don't think of Pakistan as much of an ally. That country has too many conflicting factions. Asking permission will just give an opportunity for somebody in the loop to warn al qaeda. The ISI (inter services intelligence) has long been allied with terrorists and ought to be considered a terrorist organization.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. You fight a tactic by cutting through the bullshit and getting to the

root of the problem.

Do you understand what a proxy war is? Tell us what international law has to say about that.

The war on terror is a sham because it includes the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The war on al Qaeda is not the war on terror. We should never confuse the two.

And the reason western european nations don't involve their militaries against terrorists is because they don't need to because circumstances don't require it or it wasn't a viable option or they relied on someone else's military.

And the reason OBL was let go at Tora Bora was because we relied on a local militia to do the job for us. Sort of like we're doing right now waiting for Pakistan to get control of the situation in Waziristan. It's been 6 years and they aren't any more likely to get the problem under control now then they were back in 2003.

Try to understand. The Pakistani government has unofficial and unsanctioned ties with al Qaeda. They use them and frankly are afraid of them. They give support and aid to them. We can't ask their permission or give them any warnings because it will alert the very targets we're trying to go after. It may not be a pretty situation war never is.

Right now the government of Pakistan has 3 options, they can fight us or they can fight al Qaeda or they can sit back and watch. I'm betting they sit back and watch.

[shance]

9. You kmow. Its not 'us' its the rogue Bush Administration/CIA creating these acts

along with those in the military abusing their authority and jurisdiction.

[Angela Shelley]

21. Yes, it´s us too, because we read about it, discuss the issue

and go back to our daily lives as if nothing ever happened.

[PDJane]

20. I think, before you go yelling "turor, turor, turor"

You should really read "Nato's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio."

When you're finished with that, try to find Sir Frank Kitson's book, "Low Intensity Conflict" by Sir Frank Kitson.

[libodem]

27. Color me shocked!

The US not following proper rules of engagement? Say it isn't so. I don't even believe in Al Qaeda. I'm under the impression that it was what the name of the "list" was called which kept track of foreign fighters who came to train in the Afghan camps. Most trained, left and returned to their country of origin. Hummmm, guess who trained the trainers? Oh, well, I digress, most of the 19 fucking hijackers were Saudis. I don't care what you say we don't even belong in Afghanistan let alone Pakistan. Why did this happen right after the elections? There is a CIA reason, a Pentagon, reason, an Oil company reason, a political reason. It has nothing to do with those poor nomads living in mud huts. It's a diversion for some other purpose. Collateral damage collateral shamage.

[LynnTheDem]

28. China Strikes Within US -Without Notice Or Permission

Having requested the American government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the Chinese spy agency did not seek approval.


And Americans will have no problem at all with that.

[Raskolnik]

30. A question for you

Please consider the following hypothetical: We find out that there is an Al Queda camp on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan. We know that if we request permission to strike that camp, permission will be denied and ISI will likely pass along our intelligence to Al Queda. We also know that if we request that Pakistan itself strike the camp, the request will be denied and ISI will likely pass along our intelligence to Al Queda.

In that situation, what would you do? I'm not trying to be snarky, and I'm not trying to start a flame-fest--I'm genuinely curious about what you would have the U.S. do in that scenario.

[libodem]

32. Start

a disinformation campaign against Saudi Arabia and then carpet bomb them into glass. Makes as much sense as what we did to Iraq.:nuke:

[Raskolnik]

40. Thanks for the input, but I don't think that actually addresses the question. n/t

[readmoreoften]

44. Considering that we already have troops set up in Pakistan and it's a democracy...

I'm not sure your hypothetical situation is reasonable. What makes you think that Pakistani officials will categorically condemn a strike against terrorism on their soil due to patriotism or for political benefit? One can't answer "what ifs" because they're not real. With the help of "what ifs" you can justify anything.

For example: What if all members of the Democratic party rose up in rebellion and murdered millions of conservatives? This question could be used to detain millions of people.

"what ifs" are the catchall excuse for preemptive attack. The only valid questions are: what is happening, what has our response been, what is the particular history of this action, is this attack truly unavoidable, and what will the blow back be?

[Raskolnik]

47. Not reasonable? The Pakistani central government exerts little if any control over the region...

...the ISI is fairly suspect (to put it charitably), and Musharraf does not have a completely free hand in how he can respond to situations like this given the sympathies of a large portion of Pakistan.

So I'll ask again--in the situation I outlined, what would you have the U.S. do?

[readmoreoften]

48. I have no problem with tactical strikes on terrorist base camps, really.

Particularly within a country that allows us to be there.

My problem is that I no longer trust the judgement or the intentions of my government (or elements of its military). My two biggest problems are as follows: (1) Considering the poor intelligence gathering that led us to picking up so many innocent civilians in Afghanistan and the Bush Administration's itchy trigger fingers, I don't really have an enormous amount of faith in their judgement. Whenever we bomb so-called Al Qaeda camps, I'm aware that we might be bombing some the house of the brother-in-law of some vengeful person or even a pro-democracy meeting of a rival political faction. So I flinch when we do it. (2) If we sent troops into Pakistan a la Iraq or waged war against an entire nation because of supposed terrorist connections within the borders of said nation. If terrorism is asymmetrical guerilla warfare, we shouldn't be toppling states or invading states or remaking them in our image.

The more we do 1 & 2, the more we create a climate for violent, anti-American sentiment.

My problem is I have no faith in the U.S. government en toto. My sense is that our government has supplanted the notion of protecting the citizens of the US with the commitment to protecting the assets and interests of multinationals. If it is in the interest of multinationals to destabilize a region in order to get rich rebuilding it, I think we'd use our military to make it happen.

But that's just me.

[PDJane]

33. One does not go killing foreigners just because

They might be there and they might be ready to do some nebulous something to the US. Please note that the CIA has no proof that bin Laden was the guy who was responsible for 9/11...and the only "proof" that you have any one of the perpetrators is evidence obtained by torture. Really reliable there.

[Raskolnik]

39. I don't agree with your premise.

Attacking an al Queda camp is not "killing foreigners just because they might be there and they might be ready to do something nebulous to the US."

[malaise]

35. You don't fugging own the rest of the world n/t

[Raskolnik]

38. True. How does that address the question I posed? n/t

[spanone]

37. a question for you.how do we know who we are killing? who is judge and jury?

who passes death sentences? we know that intelligence is many times totally flawed....do we just trust it when it's an unmaned drone? what if there is a terrorist cell in italy or france and they don't give permission to blow them up. do we do it anyway? just asking.

[Raskolnik]

42. We should use our best efforts to make our intelligence reliable.

We should invest the proper resources to make our intelligence services as reliable as humanly possible, and we should insulate the intelligence agencies from political pressure to the degree possible.

I'm not really sure what would happen if there was a confirmed Al Queda camp in Italy and the government refused to act. I expect we would probably work with other European intelligence services and either kill or capture them, but I'm not sure. This isn't really an analogous situation, however, because (as far as I know) there aren't many semi-autonomous border regions in Italy in which the central government is unwilling/unable to exert any meaningful control.

(and that was actually five questions)

Now, since I took a crack at your questions, perhaps you would like to address the specific situation put forth in my earlier post?

[LynnTheDem]

50. Every time we unilaterally do this shit, every time we "collateral damage" people,

we generate hatred towards us, and we create terrorists.

Every single time.

Coz apparently even some liberals can't learn that simple fact.

What would I do? I'd use every diplomatic means at my disposal to garner Pakistan govt & people's support. I would NOT invade and bomb inside any other nation's territory. Coz I wouldn't want that done to my nation. Coz I wouldn't ant to "collateral damage" innocent people. Coz I wouldn't want to engender more hatred and more terrorists.

Wow what a fucking concept.

[Raskolnik]

53. But if, at the end of your diplomatic efforts, Pakistan either refuses or is unable to exert control

over the border region, what is the next step? Diplomatic efforts should of course be our first and best hope, and this administration has clearly taken a big dump on that proposition, but that doesn't mean that the use of force is forever taken off the table. "I would NOT invade and bomb inside any other nation's territory" seems to suggest that the use of any use of force is off the table for you, which I do not think is realistic or prudent.

I think you're correct that collateral damage can be extremely harmful in the medium to long term, even if the short term gains may be significant. Unfortunately, we live in a world where nothing can be 100% guaranteed, which necessarily means that if we use force, we can only do our best to minimize any collateral damage.

[LynnTheDem]

54. I would not invade & bomb other nations' people.

That would make things WORSE.

That does make things WORSE.

Notice that over the last 6 years???

If WE illegally & unilaterally bomb other people's nations, then they can illegally & unilaterally bomb us.

Period.

[Raskolnik]

55. Not all use of force is illegal or unilateral.

You seem to be conflating any use of force with Bush's use of force, which is precisely what his administration would want. Just because his administration is clumsy, short-sighted, and rather inept in its use of force does not mean that the use of force has no place in our arsenal alongside diplomacy.

Going after* Al Queda cells/camps/leaders is what we SHOULD have been doing following September 11th, and I don't think it is prudent to allow it to flourish in the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

*by "going after" I mean capturing when feasible, and killing when not.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

36. So, they actually hit the effers? GREAT!!!

I seriously doubt Musharraf would publicly give permission when extremists are in his freakin' military!

[Disturbed]

41. This activity will continue. There is nothing anyone can do to

stop it. Nothing!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. Not sure what activity you're referencing. However, I will say this,...

,...I am fucking sick of our government asserting the hundreds of thousands of "casualties" from its effing wars on nations are somehow trivial than a band of criminals that caused us 3,000 "casualties". I would rather an internationally-backed hunt on international criminals than the TERROR OF WAR AND OCCUPATION,...ANY DAMN DAY!

I still advocate laws making war-profiteering a felony with minimum 25-year sentence attached. Then, ALL OUT WAR won't be quite so attractive.

[readmoreoften]

45. Good. I suppose that means Obama won't have to "take the battlefield to Pakistan" then.

300 Special Forces and CIA operatives toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan (of course what's left is Warlord Rule but that's another story.) We don't need to increase troops by 100,000 and pull out of Iraq to "take the battle to Pakistan". We just need a few CIA operatives and some informants.